Now that terminators can be EH pads, this code needs to iterate over the
immediate dominators of the EH pad to find a valid insertion point.
Fix for PR32107
Patch by Robert Olliff!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30511
llvm-svn: 296698
Summary:
Currently, our post-dom tree tries to ignore and remove the effects of
infinite loops. It fails miserably at this, because it tries to do it
ahead of time, and thus can only detect self-loops, and any other type
of infinite loop, it pretends doesn't exist at all.
This can, in a bunch of cases, lead to wrong answers and a completely
empty post-dom tree.
Wrong answer:
```
declare void foo()
define internal void @f() {
entry:
br i1 undef, label %bb35, label %bb3.i
bb3.i:
call void @foo()
br label %bb3.i
bb35.loopexit3:
br label %bb35
bb35:
ret void
}
```
We get:
```
Inorder PostDominator Tree:
[1] <<exit node>> {0,7}
[2] %bb35 {1,6}
[3] %bb35.loopexit3 {2,3}
[3] %entry {4,5}
```
This is a trivial modification of the testcase for PR 6047
Note that we pretend bb3.i doesn't exist.
We also pretend that bb35 post-dominates entry.
While it's true that it does not exit in a theoretical sense, it's not
really helpful to try to ignore the effect and pretend that bb35
post-dominates entry. Worse, we pretend the infinite loop does
nothing (it's usually considered a side-effect), and doesn't even
exist, even when it calls a function. Sadly, this makes it impossible
to use when you are trying to move code safely. All compilers also
create virtual or real single exit nodes (including us), and connect
infinite loops there (which this patch does). In fact, others have
worked around our behavior here, to the point of building their own
post-dom trees:
https://zneak.github.io/fcd/2016/02/17/structuring.html and pointing
out the region infrastructure is near-useless for them with postdom in
this state :(
Completely empty post-dom tree:
```
define void @spam() #0 {
bb:
br label %bb1
bb1: ; preds = %bb1, %bb
br label %bb1
bb2: ; No predecessors!
ret void
}
```
Printing analysis 'Post-Dominator Tree Construction' for function 'foo':
=============================--------------------------------
Inorder PostDominator Tree:
[1] <<exit node>> {0,1}
:(
(note that even if you ignore the effects of infinite loops, bb2
should be present as an exit node that post-dominates nothing).
This patch changes post-dom to properly handle infinite loops and does
root finding during calculation to prevent empty tress in such cases.
We match gcc's (and the canonical theoretical) behavior for infinite
loops (find the backedge, connect it to the exit block).
Testcases coming as soon as i finish running this on a ton of random graphs :)
Reviewers: chandlerc, davide
Subscribers: bryant, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29705
llvm-svn: 296535
This is a fix for a loop predication bug which resulted in malformed IR generation.
Loop invariant side of the widened condition is not guaranteed to be available in the preheader as is, so we need to expand it as well. See added unsigned_loop_0_to_n_hoist_length test for example.
Reviewed By: sanjoy, mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30099
llvm-svn: 296345
Summary:
BranchInst, SwitchInst (with non-default case) with Undef as input is not
possible at this point. As we always default-fold terminator to one target in
ResolvedUndefsIn and set the input accordingly.
So we should only have constantint/blockaddress here.
If ConstantFoldTerminator fails, that could mean 2 things.
1. ConstantFoldTerminator is doing something unexpected, i.e. not folding on constantint
or blockaddress and not making blocks that should be dead dead.
2. This is not a terminator on constantint or blockaddress. Its on a constant or
overdefined, then this block should not be dead.
In both cases, we should assert.
Reviewers: davide, efriedma, sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30381
llvm-svn: 296281
LoopUnswitch/simplify-with-nonvalness.ll is the test case for this.
The LIC has 2 users and deleting the 1st user when it can be simplified
invalidated the iterator for the 2nd user.
llvm-svn: 296069
Summary: In case we do not know what the condition is in an unswitched loop, but we know its definitely NOT a known constant. We can perform simplifcations based on this information.
Reviewers: sanjoy, hfinkel, chenli, efriedma
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: david2050, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28968
llvm-svn: 296041
While not CVP's fault, this caused miscompiles (PR31181). Reverting
until those are resolved.
(This also reverts the follow-ups r288154 and r288161 which removed the
flag.)
llvm-svn: 296030
In OptimizeAdd, we scan the operand list to see if there are any common factors
between operands that can be factored out to reduce the number of multiplies
(e.g., 'A*A+A*B*C+D' -> 'A*(A+B*C)+D'). For each operand of the operand list, we
only consider unique factors (which is tracked by the Duplicate set). Now if we
find a factor that is a negative constant, we add the negated value as a factor
as well, because we can percolate the negate out. However, we mistakenly don't
add this negated constant to the Duplicates set.
Consider the expression A*2*-2 + B. Obviously, nothing to factor.
For the added value A*2*-2 we over count 2 as a factor without this change,
which causes the assert reported in PR30256. The problem is that this code is
assuming that all the multiply operands of the add are already reassociated.
This change avoids the issue by making OptimizeAdd tolerate multiplies which
haven't been completely optimized; this sort of works, but we're doing wasted
work: we'll end up revisiting the add later anyway.
Another possible approach would be to enforce RPO iteration order more strongly.
If we have RedoInsts, we process them immediately in RPO order, rather than
waiting until we've finished processing the whole function. Intuitively, it
seems like the natural approach: reassociation works on expression trees, so
the optimization only works in one direction. That said, I'm not sure how
practical that is given the current Reassociate; the "optimal" form for an
expression depends on its use list (see all the uses of "user_back()"), so
Reassociate is really an iterative optimization of sorts, so any changes here
would probably get messy.
PR30256
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30228
llvm-svn: 296003
Summary:
Depends on D29606 and D29682
Makes us pass GVN's edge.ll (we also will pass a few other testcases
they just need cleaning up).
Thoughts on the Predicate* hiearchy of classes especially welcome :)
(it's not clear to me how best to organize it, and currently, the getBlock* seems ... uglier than maybe wasting a field somewhere or something).
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29747
llvm-svn: 295889
Add updater to passes that now need it.
Move around code in MemorySSA to expose needed functions.
Summary: Mostly cleanup
Reviewers: george.burgess.iv
Subscribers: llvm-commits, Prazek
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30221
llvm-svn: 295887
After rL294814, LSR formula can have multiple SCEVAddRecExprs inside of its BaseRegs.
Previous canonicalization will swap the first SCEVAddRecExpr in BaseRegs with ScaledReg.
But now we want to swap the SCEVAddRecExpr Reg related with current loop with ScaledReg.
Otherwise, we may generate code like this: RegA + lsr.iv + RegB, where loop invariant
parts RegA and RegB are not grouped together and cannot be promoted outside of loop.
With this patch, it will ensure lsr.iv to be generated later in the expr:
RegA + RegB + lsr.iv, so that RegA + RegB can be promoted outside of loop.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26781
llvm-svn: 295884
This enables peeling of loops with low dynamic iteration count by default,
when profile information is available.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27734
llvm-svn: 295796
The new method introduced under "-lsr-exp-narrow" option (currenlty set to true).
Summary:
The method is based on registers number mathematical expectation and should be
generally closer to optimal solution.
Please see details in comments to
"LSRInstance::NarrowSearchSpaceByDeletingCostlyFormulas()" function
(in lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopStrengthReduce.cpp).
Reviewers: qcolombet
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D29862
From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 295704
Summary: This begins using the predicateinfo pass in NewGVN.
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits, Prazek
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29682
llvm-svn: 295583
Summary:
JumpThreading for guards feature has been reverted at https://reviews.llvm.org/rL295200
due to the following problem: the feature used the following algorithm for detection of
diamond patters:
1. Find a block with 2 predecessors;
2. Check that these blocks have a common single parent;
3. Check that the parent's terminator is a branch instruction.
The problem is that these checks are insufficient. They may pass for a non-diamond
construction in case if those two predecessors are actually the same block. This may
happen if parent's terminator is a br (either conditional or unconditional) to a block
that ends with "switch" instruction with exactly two branches going to one block.
This patch re-enables the JumpThreading for guards and fixes this issue by adding the
check that those found predecessors are actually different blocks. This guarantees that
parent's terminator is a conditional branch with exactly 2 different successors, which
is now ensured by assertions. It also adds two more tests for this situation (with parent's
terminator being a conditional and an unconditional branch).
Patch by Max Kazantsev!
Reviewers: anna, sanjoy, reames
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30036
llvm-svn: 295410
In rL294814, we allow formula with SCEVAddRecExpr type of Reg from loops
other than current loop. This is good for the case when induction variable
of outerloop being used in expr in innerloop. But it is very bad to allow
such Reg from sibling loop because we may need to add lsr.iv in other sibling
loops when scev expanding those SCEVAddRecExpr type exprs. For the testcase
below, one loop can be inserted with a bunch of lsr.iv because of LSR for
other loops.
// The induction variable j from a loop in the middle will have initial
// value generated from previous sibling loop and exit value used by its
// next sibling loop.
void goo(long i, long j);
long cond;
void foo(long N) {
long i = 0;
long j = 0;
i = 0; do { goo(i, j); i++; j++; } while (cond);
i = 0; do { goo(i, j); i++; j++; } while (cond);
i = 0; do { goo(i, j); i++; j++; } while (cond);
i = 0; do { goo(i, j); i++; j++; } while (cond);
i = 0; do { goo(i, j); i++; j++; } while (cond);
i = 0; do { goo(i, j); i++; j++; } while (cond);
}
The fix is to only allow formula with SCEVAddRecExpr type of Reg from current
loop or its parents.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30021
llvm-svn: 295378
Summary:
Function isCompatibleIVType is already used as a guard before the call to
SE.getMinusSCEV(OperExpr, PrevExpr);
in LSRInstance::ChainInstruction. getMinusSCEV requires the expressions
to be of the same type, so we now consider two pointers with different
address spaces to be incompatible, since it is possible that the pointers
in fact have different sizes.
Reviewers: qcolombet, eli.friedman
Reviewed By: qcolombet
Subscribers: nhaehnle, Ka-Ka, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29885
llvm-svn: 295033
Extend our store promotion code to deal with unordered atomic accesses. Ordered atomics continue to be unhandled.
Most of the change is straight-forward, the only complicated bit is in the reasoning around mixing of atomic and non-atomic memory access. Rather than trying to reason about the complex semantics in these cases, I simply disallowed promotion when both atomic and non-atomic accesses are present. This is conservatively correct.
It seems really tempting to just promote all access to atomics, but the original accesses might have been conditional. Since we can't lower an arbitrary atomic type, it might not be safe to promote all access to atomic. Consider a loop like the following:
while(b) {
load i128 ...
if (can lower i128 atomic)
store atomic i128 ...
else
store i128
}
It could be there's no race on the location and thus the code is perfectly well defined even if we can't lower a i128 atomically.
It's not clear we need to be this conservative - arguably the program above is brocken since it can't be lowered unless the branch is folded - but I didn't want to have to fix any fallout which might result.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D15592
llvm-svn: 295015
it is dead or unreachable, as it should be.
This also makes the leader of INITIAL undef, enabling us to handle
irreducibility properly.
Summary:
This lets us verify, more than we do now, that we didn't screw up
value numbering.
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: Prazek, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29842
llvm-svn: 294844
Summary:
The patch adds instructions number generated by a solution
to LSR cost under "-lsr-insns-cost" option.
Reviewers: qcolombet, hfinkel
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D28307
From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 294821
The recommit includes some changes of testcases. No functional change to the patch.
In RateRegister of existing LSR, if a formula contains a Reg which is a SCEVAddRecExpr,
and this SCEVAddRecExpr's loop is an outerloop, the formula will be marked as Loser
and dropped.
Suppose we have an IR that %for.body is outerloop and %for.body2 is innerloop. LSR only
handle inner loop now so only %for.body2 will be handled.
Using the logic above, formula like
reg(%array) + reg({1,+, %size}<%for.body>) + 1*reg({0,+,1}<%for.body2>) will be dropped
no matter what because reg({1,+, %size}<%for.body>) is a SCEVAddRecExpr type reg related
with outerloop. Only formula like
reg(%array) + 1*reg({{1,+, %size}<%for.body>,+,1}<nuw><nsw><%for.body2>) will be kept
because the SCEVAddRecExpr related with outerloop is folded into the initial value of the
SCEVAddRecExpr related with current loop.
But in some cases, we do need to share the basic induction variable
reg{0 ,+, 1}<%for.body2> among LSR Uses to reduce the final total number of induction
variables used by LSR, so we don't want to drop the formula like
reg(%array) + reg({1,+, %size}<%for.body>) + 1*reg({0,+,1}<%for.body2>) unconditionally.
From the existing comment, it tries to avoid considering multiple level loops at the same time.
However, existing LSR only handles innermost loop, so for any SCEVAddRecExpr with a loop other
than current loop, it is an invariant and will be simple to handle, and the formula doesn't have
to be dropped.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26429
llvm-svn: 294814
This was marking the loop for deletion after the loop was deleted. This
almost works, except that when we do any kind of debug logging it starts
reading the name of the loop from deleted memory or otherwise blowing
up. This can fail in a bunch of ways. I recently added a test that
*always* does this, and it started failing on the sanitizer bots.
The fix is to mark the loop as deleted in the loop PM infrastructure
before we remove the loop. We can do this by passing the updater into
the routine. That also lets us simplify a bunch of other interface
components here for a net win.
llvm-svn: 294810
Chandler mentioned at the last social that the need for BFI in the new pass manager was causing a slight hiccup for this pass. Given this code has been checked in, but off for over a year, it makes sense to just remove it for now.
Note that there's nothing wrong with the general idea - it's actually a quite good one - and once we have the infrastructure in place to implement this without the full recompuation on every loop, we absolutely should.
llvm-svn: 294715
Summary:
This patch allows JumpThreading also thread through guards.
Virtually, guard(cond) is equivalent to the following construction:
if (cond) { do something } else {deoptimize}
Yet it is not explicitly converted into IFs before lowering.
This patch enables early threading through guards in simple cases.
Currently it covers the following situation:
if (cond1) {
// code A
} else {
// code B
}
// code C
guard(cond2)
// code D
If there is implication cond1 => cond2 or !cond1 => cond2, we can transform
this construction into the following:
if (cond1) {
// code A
// code C
} else {
// code B
// code C
guard(cond2)
}
// code D
Thus, removing the guard from one of execution branches.
Patch by Max Kazantsev!
Reviewers: reames, apilipenko, igor-laevsky, anna, sanjoy
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29620
llvm-svn: 294617
Summary:
After the DFS order change for LVI, i have a few testcases that now
take forever.
The TL;DR - This is mainly due to the overdefined cache, but that
requires predicateinfo to fix[1]
In order to maximize reuse of the LVI cache for now, change the order
we iterate in.
This reduces my testcase from 5 minutes to 4 seconds.
I have verified cases like gmic do not get slower.
I am playing with whether the order should be postorder or idf.
[1] In practice, overdefined anywhere should be overdefined
everywhere, so this cache should be global. That also fixes this bug.
The problem, however, is that LVI relies on this cache being filled in
per-block because it wants different values in different blocks due to
precisely the naming issue that predicateinfo fixes. With
predicateinfo, making the cache global works fine on individual
passes, and also resolves this issue.
Reviewers: davide, sanjoy, chandlerc
Subscribers: llvm-commits, djasper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29679
llvm-svn: 294398
Currently IRCE relies on the loops it transforms to be (semantically) of
the form:
for (i = START; i < END; i++)
...
or
for (i = START; i > END; i--)
...
However, we were not verifying the presence of the START < END entry
check (i.e. check before the first iteration). We were only verifying
that the backedge was guarded by (i + 1) < END.
Usually this would work "fine" since (especially in Java) most loops do
actually have the START < END check, but of course that is not
guaranteed.
llvm-svn: 294375
This reverts commit r294250. It caused PR31891.
Add a test case that shows that inlinable calls retain location
information with an accurate scope.
llvm-svn: 294317
Summary: While scanning predecessors to find an available loaded value, if the predecessor has a single predecessor, we can continue scanning through the single predecessor.
Reviewers: mcrosier, rengolin, reames, davidxl, haicheng
Reviewed By: rengolin
Subscribers: zzheng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29200
llvm-svn: 293896
Summary:
We can hoist out loads that are dominated by invariant.start, to the preheader.
We conservatively assume the load is variant, if we see a corresponding
use of invariant.start (it could be an invariant.end or an escaping
call).
Reviewers: mkuper, sanjoy, reames
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29331
llvm-svn: 293887
Summary: No need to try to ease BB from LoopHeaders as we already know that BB is not in LoopHeaders.
Reviewers: hsung, majnemer, mcrosier, haicheng, rengolin
Reviewed By: rengolin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29232
llvm-svn: 293802
This tries to address what Hal defined (in the post-commit review of
r293727) a long-standing problem with noinline, where we end up
de facto inlining trivial functions e.g.
__attribute__((noinline)) int patatino(void) { return 5; }
because of return value propagation.
llvm-svn: 293799
For targets with different addressing modes in each address space,
if this is dropped querying isLegalAddressingMode later with this
will give a nonsense result, breaking the isLegalUse assertions.
This is a candidate for the 4.0 release branch.
llvm-svn: 293542
This reverts commit r293196
Besides making things look nicer, ATM, we'd like to preserve analysis
more than we'd like to destroy the CFG. We'll probably revisit in the future
llvm-svn: 293501
We had various variants of defining dump() functions in LLVM. Normalize
them (this should just consistently implement the things discussed in
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2014-January/034323.html
For reference:
- Public headers should just declare the dump() method but not use
LLVM_DUMP_METHOD or #if !defined(NDEBUG) || defined(LLVM_ENABLE_DUMP)
- The definition of a dump method should look like this:
#if !defined(NDEBUG) || defined(LLVM_ENABLE_DUMP)
LLVM_DUMP_METHOD void MyClass::dump() {
// print stuff to dbgs()...
}
#endif
llvm-svn: 293359
In r292621, the recommit fixes a bug related with live interval update
after the partial redundent copy is moved.
This recommit solves an additional bug related to the lack of update of
subranges.
The original patch is to solve the performance problem described in
PR27827. Register coalescing sometimes cannot remove a copy because of
interference. But if we can find a reverse copy in one of the predecessor
block of the copy, the copy is partially redundent and we may remove the
copy partially by moving it to the predecessor block without the
reverse copy.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28585
Re-apply r292621
Revert "Revert rL292621. Caused some internal build bot failures in apple."
This reverts commit r292984.
Original patch: Wei Mi <wmi@google.com>
Subrange fix: Mostly Matthias Braun <matze@braunis.de>
llvm-svn: 293353
skip sub-subloops.
The logic to skip subloops dated from when this code was shared with the
cached case. Once it was factored out to only run in the case of
recomputed subloops it became a dangerous bug. If a subsubloop contained
an interfering instruction it would be silently skipped from the alias
sets for LICM.
With the old pass manager this was extremely hard to trigger as it would
require failing to visit these subloops with the LICM pass but then
visiting the outer loop somehow. I've not yet contrived any test case
that actually manages to trigger this.
But with the new pass manager we don't do the cross-loop caching hack
that the old PM does and so we recompute alias set information from
first principles. While this seems much cleaner and simpler it exposed
this bug and would subtly miscompile code due to failing to correctly
model the aliasing constraints of deeply nested loops.
llvm-svn: 293273
Summary:
This adds basic dead and redundant store elimination to
NewGVN. Unlike our current DSE, it will happily do cross-block DSE if
it meets our requirements.
We get a bunch of DSE's simple.ll cases, and some stuff it doesn't.
Unlike DSE, however, we only try to eliminate stores of the same value
to the same memory location, not just general stores to the same
memory location.
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29149
llvm-svn: 293258
the main pipeline.
This is a very straight forward port. Nothing weird or surprising.
This brings the number of missing passes from the new PM's pipeline down
to three.
llvm-svn: 293249
Summary:
This does not actually fix the testcase in PR31761 (discussion is
ongoing on the testcase), but does fix a bug it exposes, where stores
were not properly clobbering loads.
We accomplish this by unifying the memory equivalence infratructure
back into the normal congruence infrastructure, and then properly
destroying congruence classes when memory state leaders disappear.
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29195
llvm-svn: 293216
factory functions for the two modes the loop unroller is actually used
in in-tree: simplified full-unrolling and the entire thing including
partial unrolling.
I've also wired these up to nice names so you can express both of these
being in a pipeline easily. This is a precursor to actually enabling
these parts of the O2 pipeline.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28897
llvm-svn: 293136
Even when we don't create a remainder loop (that is, when we unroll by 2), we
may duplicate nested loops into the remainder. This is complicated by the fact
the remainder may itself be either inserted into an outer loop, or at the top
level. In the latter case, we may need to create new top-level loops.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29156
llvm-svn: 293124
This patch introduces guard based loop predication optimization. The new LoopPredication pass tries to convert loop variant range checks to loop invariant by widening checks across loop iterations. For example, it will convert
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
guard(i < len);
...
}
to
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
guard(n - 1 < len);
...
}
After this transformation the condition of the guard is loop invariant, so loop-unswitch can later unswitch the loop by this condition which basically predicates the loop by the widened condition:
if (n - 1 < len)
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
...
}
else
deoptimize
This patch relies on an NFC change to make ScalarEvolution::isMonotonicPredicate public (revision 293062).
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29034
llvm-svn: 293064
loops.
We do this by reconstructing the newly added loops after the unroll
completes to avoid threading pass manager details through all the mess
of the unrolling infrastructure.
I've enabled some extra assertions in the LPM to try and catch issues
here and enabled a bunch of unroller tests to try and make sure this is
sane.
Currently, I'm manually running loop-simplify when needed. That should
go away once it is folded into the LPM infrastructure.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28848
llvm-svn: 293011
Summary:
GVNHoist performs all the optimizations that MLSM does to loads, in a
more general way, and in a faster time bound (MLSM is N^3 in most
cases, N^4 in a few edge cases).
This disables the load portion.
Note that the way ld_hoist_st_sink.ll is written makes one think that
the loads should be moved to the while.preheader block, but
1. Neither MLSM nor GVNHoist do it (they both move them to identical places).
2. MLSM couldn't possibly do it anyway, as the while.preheader block
is not the head of the diamond, while.body is. (GVNHoist could do it
if it was legal).
3. At a glance, it's not legal anyway because the in-loop load
conflict with the in-loop store, so the loads must stay in-loop.
I am happy to update the test to use update_test_checks so that
checking is tighter, just was going to do it as a followup.
Note that i can find no particular benefit to the store portion on any
real testcase/benchmark i have (even size-wise). If we really still
want it, i am happy to commit to writing a targeted store sinker, just
taking the code from the MemorySSA port of MergedLoadStoreMotion
(which is N^2 worst case, and N most of the time).
We can do what it does in a much better time bound.
We also should be both hoisting and sinking stores, not just sinking
them, anyway, since whether we should hoist or sink to merge depends
basically on luck of the draw of where the blockers are placed.
Nonetheless, i have left it alone for now.
Reviewers: chandlerc, davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29079
llvm-svn: 292971
a lazy-asserting PoisoningVH.
AssertVH is fundamentally incompatible with cache-invalidation of
analysis results. The invaliadtion happens after the AssertingVH has
already fired. Instead, use a PoisoningVH that will assert if the
dangling handle is ever used rather than merely be assigned or
destroyed.
This patch also removes all of the (numerous) doomed attempts to work
around this fundamental incompatibility. It is a pretty significant
simplification IMO.
The most interesting change is in the Inliner where we still do some
clearing because we don't want to rely on the coarse grained
invalidation strategy of the containing pass manager. However, I prefer
the approach that contains this logic to the cleanup phase of the
Inliner, and I think we could enhance the CGSCC analysis management
layer to make this even better in the future if desired.
The rest is straight cleanup.
I've also added a test for one of the harder cases to work around: when
a *module analysis* contains many AssertingVHes pointing at functions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29006
llvm-svn: 292928
Summary:
The LibFunc::Func enum holds enumerators named for libc functions.
Unfortunately, there are real situations, including libc implementations, where
function names are actually macros (musl uses "#define fopen64 fopen", for
example; any other transitively visible macro would have similar effects).
Strictly speaking, a conforming C++ Standard Library should provide any such
macros as functions instead (via <cstdio>). However, there are some "library"
functions which are not part of the standard, and thus not subject to this
rule (fopen64, for example). So, in order to be both portable and consistent,
the enum should not use the bare function names.
The old enum naming used a namespace LibFunc and an enum Func, with bare
enumerators. This patch changes LibFunc to be an enum with enumerators prefixed
with "LibFFunc_". (Unfortunately, a scoped enum is not sufficient to override
macros.)
There are additional changes required in clang.
Reviewers: rsmith
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, mzolotukhin, nemanjai, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28476
llvm-svn: 292848
invalidation of deleted functions in GlobalDCE.
This was always testing a bug really triggered in GlobalDCE. Right now
we have analyses with asserting value handles into IR. As long as those
remain, when *deleting* an IR unit, we cannot wait for the normal
invalidation scheme to kick in even though it was designed to work
correctly in the face of these kinds of deletions. Instead, the pass
needs to directly handle invalidating the analysis results pointing at
that IR unit.
I've tought the Inliner about this and this patch teaches GlobalDCE.
This will handle the asserting VH case in the existing test as well as
other issues of the same fundamental variety. I've moved the test into
the GlobalDCE directory and added a comment explaining what is going on.
Note that we cannot simply require LVI here because LVI is too lazy.
llvm-svn: 292773
become unavailable.
The AssumptionCache is now immutable but it still needs to respond to
DomTree invalidation if it ended up caching one.
This lets us remove one of the explicit invalidates of LVI but the
other one continues to avoid hitting a latent bug.
llvm-svn: 292769
Don't call `isTriviallyDeadInstructions()` once we discover that
an instruction is dead. Instead, set DFS number zero (as suggested
by Danny) and forget about it (this also speeds up things as we
won't try to reprocess that block).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28930
llvm-svn: 292676
Summary:
This rewrites store expression/leader handling. We no longer use the
value operand as the leader, instead, we store it separately. We also
now store the stored value as part of the expression, and compare it
when comparing stores for equality. This enables us to get rid of a
bunch of our previous hacks and machinations, as the existing
machinery takes care of everything *except* updating the stored value
on classes. The only time we have to update it is if the storecount
goes to 0, and when we do, we destroy it.
Since we no longer use the value operand as the leader, during elimination, we have to use the value operand. Doing this also fixes a bunch of store forwarding cases we were missing.
Any value operand we use is guaranteed to either be updated by previous eliminations, or minimized by future ones.
(IE the fact that we don't use the most dominating value operand when it's not a constant does not affect anything).
Sadly, this change also exposes that we didn't pay attention to the
output of the pr31594.ll test, as it also very clearly exposes the
same store leader bug we are fixing here.
(I added pr31682.ll anyway, but maybe we think that's too large to be useful)
On the plus side, propagate-ir-flags.ll now passes due to the
corrected store forwarding.
This change was 3 stage'd on darwin and linux, with the full test-suite.
Reviewers:
davide
Subscribers:
llvm-commits
llvm-svn: 292648
Like several other loop passes (the vectorizer, etc) this pass doesn't
really fit the model of a loop pass. The critical distinction is that it
isn't intended to be pipelined together with other loop passes. I plan
to add some documentation to the loop pass manager to make this more
clear on that side.
LoopSink is also different because it doesn't really need a lot of the
infrastructure of our loop passes. For example, if there aren't loop
invariant instructions causing a preheader to exist, there is no need to
form a preheader. It also doesn't need LCSSA because this pass is
only involved in sinking invariant instructions from a preheader into
the loop, not reasoning about live-outs.
This allows some nice simplifications to the pass in the new PM where we
can directly walk the loops once without restructuring them.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28921
llvm-svn: 292589
Part of the assert has been left active for further debugging.
The other part has been turned into a stat for tracking for the
moment.
llvm-svn: 292583
This can prove that:
extern int f;
int g() {
int x = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 365; ++i) {
x /= f;
}
return x;
}
always returns zero. Thanks to Sanjoy for confirming this
transformation actually made sense (bugs are mine).
llvm-svn: 292531
Summary:
In case of non-alloca pointers, we check for whether it is a pointer
from malloc-like calls and it is not captured. In such case, we can
promote the pointer, as the caller will have no way to access this pointer
even if there is unwinding in middle of the loop.
Reviewers: hfinkel, sanjoy, reames, eli.friedman
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28834
llvm-svn: 292510
Summary: Partial unrolling should have separate threshold with full unrolling.
Reviewers: efriedma, mzolotukhin
Reviewed By: efriedma, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28831
llvm-svn: 292293
unique exit block if available rather than rolling it ourselves.
This is a little disappointing because that helper doesn't do anything
clever to short-circuit the (surprisingly expensive) computation of all
exit blocks. What's worse is that the way we compute this is hopelessly,
hilariously inefficient. We're literally computing the same information
two different ways and multiple times each way:
- hasDedicatedExits computes the exit block set and then looks at the
predecessors of each
- getExitingBlocks computes the set of loop blocks which have exiting
successors
- getUniqueExitBlock(s) computes the set of non-loop blocks reached from
loop blocks (sound familiar?)
Anyways, at some point we should clean all of this up in the LoopInfo
API, but for now just simplifying the user I'm about to touch.
llvm-svn: 292282
I hope that for any code, it is changed only with good reason and only
when the author knows what they are doing...
There is of course good reason to comment here about the subtlety of the
process, and I've left that comment in tact.
llvm-svn: 292275
instead of members.
No state was being provided by the object so this seems strictly
simpler.
I've also tried to improve the name and comments for the functions to
more thoroughly document what they are doing.
llvm-svn: 292274
that we know has exactly one element when all we are going to do is get
that one element out of it.
Instead, pass around that one element.
There are more simplifications to come in this code...
llvm-svn: 292273
a function's CFG when that CFG is unchanged.
This allows transformation passes to simply claim they preserve the CFG
and analysis passes to check for the CFG being preserved to remove the
fanout of all analyses being listed in all passes.
I've gone through and removed or cleaned up as many of the comments
reminding us to do this as I could.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28627
llvm-svn: 292054
Summary:
This is a testcase where phi node cycling happens, and because we do
not order the leaders by domination or anything similar, the leader
keeps changing.
Using std::set for the members is too expensive, and we actually don't
need them sorted all the time, only at leader changes.
We could keep both a set and a vector, and keep them mostly sorted and
resort as necessary, or use a set and a fibheap, but all of this seems
premature.
After running some statistics, we are able to avoid the vast majority
of sorting by keeping a "next leader" field. Most congruence classes only have
leader changes once or twice during GVN.
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28594
llvm-svn: 291968
It was always zero. When we move a store from `initial` to its
own congruency class, we end up with a negative store count, which
is obviously wrong.
Also, while here, change StoreCount to be signed so that the assertions
actually fire.
Ack'ed by Daniel Berlin.
llvm-svn: 291725
classes, and updating checking to allow for equivalence through
reachability.
(Sadly, the checking here is not perfect, and can't be made perfect,
so we'll have to disable it after we are satisfied with correctness.
Right now it is just "very unlikely" to happen.)
llvm-svn: 291698
the latter to the Transforms library.
While the loop PM uses an analysis to form the IR units, the current
plan is to have the PM itself establish and enforce both loop simplified
form and LCSSA. This would be a layering violation in the analysis
library.
Fundamentally, the idea behind the loop PM is to *transform* loops in
addition to running passes over them, so it really seemed like the most
natural place to sink this was into the transforms library.
We can't just move *everything* because we also have loop analyses that
rely on a subset of the invariants. So this patch splits the the loop
infrastructure into the analysis management that has to be part of the
analysis library, and the transform-aware pass manager.
This also required splitting the loop analyses' printer passes out to
the transforms library, which makes sense to me as running these will
transform the code into LCSSA in theory.
I haven't split the unittest though because testing one component
without the other seems nearly intractable.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28452
llvm-svn: 291662
arguments much like the CGSCC pass manager.
This is a major redesign following the pattern establish for the CGSCC layer to
support updates to the set of loops during the traversal of the loop nest and
to support invalidation of analyses.
An additional significant burden in the loop PM is that so many passes require
access to a large number of function analyses. Manually ensuring these are
cached, available, and preserved has been a long-standing burden in LLVM even
with the help of the automatic scheduling in the old pass manager. And it made
the new pass manager extremely unweildy. With this design, we can package the
common analyses up while in a function pass and make them immediately available
to all the loop passes. While in some cases this is unnecessary, I think the
simplicity afforded is worth it.
This does not (yet) address loop simplified form or LCSSA form, but those are
the next things on my radar and I have a clear plan for them.
While the patch is very large, most of it is either mechanically updating loop
passes to the new API or the new testing for the loop PM. The code for it is
reasonably compact.
I have not yet updated all of the loop passes to correctly leverage the update
mechanisms demonstrated in the unittests. I'll do that in follow-up patches
along with improved FileCheck tests for those passes that ensure things work in
more realistic scenarios. In many cases, there isn't much we can do with these
until the loop simplified form and LCSSA form are in place.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28292
llvm-svn: 291651
These are interesting again because the user may not be aware that this
is a common reason preventing LICM.
A const is removed from an instruction pointer declaration in order to
pass it to ORE.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27940
llvm-svn: 291649
In some cases StructurizeCfg updates root node, but dominator info
remains unchanges, it causes crash when expensive checks are enabled.
To cope with this problem a new method was added to DominatorTreeBase
that allows adding new root nodes, it is called in StructurizeCfg to
put dominator tree in sync.
This change fixes PR27488.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28114
llvm-svn: 291530
Summary: LLVM's non-standard notion of phi nodes means we can't both try to substitute for undef in phi nodes *and* use phi nodes as leaders all the time. This changes NewGVN to use the same semantics as SimplifyPHINode to decide which phi nodes are equivalent.
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28312
llvm-svn: 291308
This is fixing a bug where Loop Vectorization is widening a load but
with a lower alignment. Hoisting the load without propagating the alignment
will allow inst-combine to later deduce a higher alignment that what the pointer
actually is.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28408
llvm-svn: 291281
order to avoid jumpy line tables. Calls are left alone because they may be inlined.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28390
llvm-svn: 291258
Promotion is always legal when a store within the loop is guaranteed to execute.
However, this is not a necessary condition - for promotion to be memory model
semantics-preserving, it is enough to have a store that dominates every exit
block. This is because if the store dominates every exit block, the fact the
exit block was executed implies the original store was executed as well.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28147
llvm-svn: 291171
Summary:
Preheader instruction's operands will always be invariant w.r.t. the loop which its the preheader
for.
Memory aliases are handled in canSinkOrHoistInst.
Reviewers: danielcdh, davidxl
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28270
llvm-svn: 291132
performing partial redundancy elimination (PRE). Not doing so can cause jumpy line
tables and confusing (though correct) source attributions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27857
llvm-svn: 291037
Apparently my suggestion of using ternary doesn't really work
as clang complains about incompatible types on LHS and RHS. Some
GCC versions happen to accept the code but clang behaviour is
correct here.
llvm-svn: 290822
Summary:
This avoids the very fragile code for null expressions. We could also use a denseset that tracks which things have null expressions instead, but that seems pretty fragile and premature optimization.
This resolves a number of infinite loop cases, test reductions coming.
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28193
llvm-svn: 290816
Summary: Previously, we tried to fix up the equivalences during symbolic evaluation. This does not work. Now, we change the equivalences during congruence finding, where it belongs. We also initialize the equivalence table to give a maximal answer.
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28192
llvm-svn: 290815
CVP doesn't care about the order of blocks visited, but by using a pre-order traversal over the graph we can a) not visit unreachable blocks and b) optimize as we go so that analysis of later blocks produce slightly more precise results.
I noticed this via inspection and don't have a concrete example which points to the issue.
llvm-svn: 290760
This is similar to the allocfn case - if an alloca is not captured, then it's
necessarily thread-local.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28170
llvm-svn: 290738
Summary:
The current loop complete unroll algorithm checks if unrolling complete will reduce the runtime by a certain percentage. If yes, it will apply a fixed boosting factor to the threshold (by discounting cost). The problem for this approach is that the threshold abruptly. This patch makes the boosting factor a function of runtime reduction percentage, capped by a fixed threshold. In this way, the threshold changes continuously.
The patch also simplified the code by reducing one parameter in UP.
The patch only affects code-gen of two speccpu2006 benchmark:
445.gobmk binary size decreases 0.08%, no performance change.
464.h264ref binary size increases 0.24%, no performance change.
Reviewers: mzolotukhin, chandlerc
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26989
llvm-svn: 290737
"Changed" doesn't actually change within the loop, so there's
no reason to keep track of it - we always return false during
analysis and true after the transformation is made.
llvm-svn: 290735
This moves the exit block and insertion point computation to be eager,
instead of after seeing the first scalar we can promote.
The cost is relatively small (the computation happens anyway, see discussion
on D28147), and the code is easier to follow, and can bail out earlier
if there's a catchswitch present.
llvm-svn: 290729
We would check whether we have a prehader *or* dedicated exit blocks,
and go into the promotion loop. Then, for each alias set we'd check
if we have a preheader *and* dedicated exit blocks, and bail if not.
Instead, bail immediately if we don't have both.
llvm-svn: 290728
We want to recompute LCSSA only when we actually promoted a value.
This means we only need to look at changes made by promotion when
deciding whether to recompute it or not, not at regular sinking/hoisting.
(This was what the code was documented as doing, just not what it did)
Hopefully NFC.
llvm-svn: 290726
Summary:
The optimal iteration order for this problem is RPO order. We want to
process as many preds of a backedge as we can before we process the
backedge.
At the same time, as we add predicate handling, we want to be able to
touch instructions that are dominated by a given block by
ranges (because a change in value numbering a predicate possibly
affects all users we dominate that are using that predicate).
If we don't do it this way, we can't do value inference over
backedges (the paper covers this in depth).
The newgvn branch currently overshoots the last part, and guarantees
that it will touch *at least* the right set of instructions, but it
does touch more. This is because the bitvector instruction ranges are
currently generated in RPO order (so we take the max and the min of
the ranges of dominated blocks, which means there are some in the
middle we didn't have to touch that we did).
We can do better by sorting the dominator tree, and then just using
dominator tree order.
As a preliminary, the dominator tree has some RPO guarantees, but not
enough. It guarantees that for a given node, your idom must come
before you in the RPO ordering. It guarantees no relative RPO ordering
for siblings. We add siblings in whatever order they appear in the module.
So that is what we fix.
We sort the children array of the domtree into RPO order, and then use
the dominator tree for ordering, instead of RPO, since the dominator
tree is now a valid RPO ordering.
Note: This would help any other pass that iterates a forward problem
in dominator tree order. Most of them are single pass. It will still
maximize whatever result they compute. We could also build the
dominator tree in this order, but our incremental updates would still
put it out of sort order, and recomputing the sort order is almost as
hard as general incremental updates of the domtree.
Also note that the sorting does not affect any tests, etc. Nothing
depends on domtree order, including the verifier, the equals
functions for domtree nodes, etc.
How much could this matter, you ask?
Here are the current numbers.
This is generated by running NewGVN over all files in LLVM.
Note that once we propagate equalities, the differences go up by an
order of magnitude or two (IE instead of 29, the max ends up in the
thousands, since the worst case we add a factor of N, where N is the
number of branch predicates). So while it doesn't look that stark for
the default ordering, it gets *much much* worse. There are also
programs in the wild where the difference is already pretty stark
(2 iterations vs hundreds).
RPO ordering:
759040 Number of iterations is 1
112908 Number of iterations is 2
Default dominator tree ordering:
755081 Number of iterations is 1
116234 Number of iterations is 2
603 Number of iterations is 3
27 Number of iterations is 4
2 Number of iterations is 5
1 Number of iterations is 7
Dominator tree sorted:
759040 Number of iterations is 1
112908 Number of iterations is 2
<yay!>
Really bad ordering (sort domtree siblings in postorder. not quite the
worst possible, but yeah):
754008 Number of iterations is 1
21 Number of iterations is 10
8 Number of iterations is 11
6 Number of iterations is 12
5 Number of iterations is 13
2 Number of iterations is 14
2 Number of iterations is 15
3 Number of iterations is 16
1 Number of iterations is 17
2 Number of iterations is 18
96642 Number of iterations is 2
1 Number of iterations is 20
2 Number of iterations is 21
1 Number of iterations is 22
1 Number of iterations is 29
17266 Number of iterations is 3
2598 Number of iterations is 4
798 Number of iterations is 5
273 Number of iterations is 6
186 Number of iterations is 7
80 Number of iterations is 8
42 Number of iterations is 9
Reviewers: chandlerc, davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28129
llvm-svn: 290699
emplace_back is not faster if it is equivalent to push_back. In this cases emplaced value had the
same type that the one stored in container. It is ugly and it might be even slower (see
Scott Meyers presentation about emplacement).
llvm-svn: 290685
Mostly use a bit more idiomatic C++ where we can,
so we can combine some things later.
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28111
llvm-svn: 290550
The pass creates some state which expects to be cleaned up by
a later instance of the same pass. opt-bisect happens to expose
this not ideal design because calling skipLoop() will result in
this state not being cleaned up at times and an assertion firing
in `doFinalization()`. Chandler tells me the new pass manager will
give us options to avoid these design traps, but until it's not ready,
we need a workaround for the current pass infrastructure. Fix provided
by Andy Kaylor, see the review for a complete discussion.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25848
llvm-svn: 290427
The code have been developed by Daniel Berlin over the years, and
the new implementation goal is that of addressing shortcomings of
the current GVN infrastructure, i.e. long compile time for large
testcases, lack of phi predication, no load/store value numbering
etc...
The current code just implements the "core" GVN algorithm, although
other pieces (load coercion, phi handling, predicate system) are
already implemented in a branch out of tree. Once the core is stable,
we'll start adding pieces on top of the base framework.
The test currently living in test/Transform/NewGVN are a copy
of the ones in GVN, with proper `XFAIL` (missing features in NewGVN).
A flag will be added in a future commit to enable NewGVN, so that
interested parties can exercise this code easily.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26224
llvm-svn: 290346
from the old pass manager in the new one.
I'm not trying to support (initially) the numerous options that are
currently available to customize the pass pipeline. If we end up really
wanting them, we can add them later, but I suspect many are no longer
interesting. The simplicity of omitting them will help a lot as we sort
out what the pipeline should look like in the new PM.
I've also documented to the best of my ability *why* each pass or group
of passes is used so that reading the pipeline is more helpful. In many
cases I think we have some questionable choices of ordering and I've
left FIXME comments in place so we know what to come back and revisit
going forward. But for now, I've left it as similar to the current
pipeline as I could.
Lastly, I've had to comment out several places where passes are not
ported to the new pass manager or where the loop pass infrastructure is
not yet ready. I did at least fix a few bugs in the loop pass
infrastructure uncovered by running the full pipeline, but I didn't want
to go too far in this patch -- I'll come back and re-enable these as the
infrastructure comes online. But I'd like to keep the comments in place
because I don't want to lose track of which passes need to be enabled
and where they go.
One thing that seemed like a significant API improvement was to require
that we don't build pipelines for O0. It seems to have no real benefit.
I've also switched back to returning pass managers by value as at this
API layer it feels much more natural to me for composition. But if
others disagree, I'm happy to go back to an output parameter.
I'm not 100% happy with the testing strategy currently, but it seems at
least OK. I may come back and try to refactor or otherwise improve this
in subsequent patches but I wanted to at least get a good starting point
in place.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28042
llvm-svn: 290325
In r267672, where the loop distribution pragma was introduced, I tried
it hard to keep the old behavior for opt: when opt is invoked
with -loop-distribute, it should distribute the loop (it's off by
default when ran via the optimization pipeline).
As MichaelZ has discovered this has the unintended consequence of
breaking a very common developer work-flow to reproduce compilations
using opt: First you print the pass pipeline of clang
with -debug-pass=Arguments and then invoking opt with the returned
arguments.
clang -debug-pass will include -loop-distribute but the pass is invoked
with default=off so nothing happens unless the loop carries the pragma.
While through opt (default=on) we will try to distribute all loops.
This changes opt's default to off as well to match clang. The tests are
modified to explicitly enable the transformation.
llvm-svn: 290235
After r289755, the AssumptionCache is no longer needed. Variables affected by
assumptions are now found by using the new operand-bundle-based scheme. This
new scheme is more computationally efficient, and also we need much less
code...
llvm-svn: 289756
There was an efficiency problem with how we processed @llvm.assume in
ValueTracking (and other places). The AssumptionCache tracked all of the
assumptions in a given function. In order to find assumptions relevant to
computing known bits, etc. we searched every assumption in the function. For
ValueTracking, that means that we did O(#assumes * #values) work in InstCombine
and other passes (with a constant factor that can be quite large because we'd
repeat this search at every level of recursion of the analysis).
Several of us discussed this situation at the last developers' meeting, and
this implements the discussed solution: Make the values that an assume might
affect operands of the assume itself. To avoid exposing this detail to
frontends and passes that need not worry about it, I've used the new
operand-bundle feature to add these extra call "operands" in a way that does
not affect the intrinsic's signature. I think this solution is relatively
clean. InstCombine adds these extra operands based on what ValueTracking, LVI,
etc. will need and then those passes need only search the users of the values
under consideration. This should fix the computational-complexity problem.
At this point, no passes depend on the AssumptionCache, and so I'll remove
that as a follow-up change.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27259
llvm-svn: 289755
Summary:
This patch will add loop metadata on the pre and post loops generated by IRCE.
Currently, we have metadata for disabling optimizations such as vectorization,
unrolling, loop distribution and LICM versioning (and confirmed that these
optimizations check for the metadata before proceeding with the transformation).
The pre and post loops generated by IRCE need not go through loop opts (since
these are slow paths).
Added two test cases as well.
Reviewers: sanjoy, reames
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26806
llvm-svn: 289588
Summary:
This is last in of a series of patches to evolve ADCE.cpp to support
removing of unnecessary control flow.
This patch adds the code to update the control and data flow graphs
to remove the dead control flow.
Also update unit tests to test the capability to remove dead,
may-be-infinite loop which is enabled by the switch
-adce-remove-loops.
Previous patches:
D23824 [ADCE] Add handling of PHI nodes when removing control flow
D23559 [ADCE] Add control dependence computation
D23225 [ADCE] Modify data structures to support removing control flow
D23065 [ADCE] Refactor anticipating new functionality (NFC)
D23102 [ADCE] Refactoring for new functionality (NFC)
Reviewers: dberlin, majnemer, nadav, mehdi_amini
Subscribers: llvm-commits, david2050, freik, twoh
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24918
llvm-svn: 289548
The motivating example is:
extern int patatino;
int goo() {
int x = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; ++i) {
x *= patatino;
}
return x;
}
Currently SCCP will not realize that this function returns always zero,
therefore will try to unroll and vectorize the loop at -O3 producing an
awful lot of (useless) code. With this change, it will just produce:
0000000000000000 <g>:
xor %eax,%eax
retq
llvm-svn: 289175
The fix committed in r288851 doesn't cover all the cases.
In particular, if we have an instruction with side effects
which has a no non-dbg use not depending on the bits, we still
perform RAUW destroying the dbg.value's first argument.
Prevent metadata from being replaced here to avoid the issue.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27534
llvm-svn: 288987
In the case of a fully redundant load LI dominated by an equivalent load V, GVN
should always preserve the original debug location of V. Otherwise, we risk to
introduce an incorrect stepping.
If V has debug info, then clearly it should not be modified. If V has a null
debugloc, then it is still potentially incorrect to propagate LI's debugloc
because LI may not post-dominate V.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27468
llvm-svn: 288903
BDCE has two phases:
1. It asks SimplifyDemandedBits if all the bits of an instruction are dead, and if so,
replaces all its uses with the constant zero.
2. Then, it asks SimplifyDemandedBits again if the instruction is really dead
(no side effects etc..) and if so, eliminates it.
Now, in 1) if all the bits of an instruction are dead, we may end up replacing a dbg use:
%call = tail call i32 (...) @g() #4, !dbg !15
tail call void @llvm.dbg.value(metadata i32 %call, i64 0, metadata !8, metadata !16), !dbg !17
->
%call = tail call i32 (...) @g() #4, !dbg !15
tail call void @llvm.dbg.value(metadata i32 0, i64 0, metadata !8, metadata !16), !dbg !17
but not eliminating the call because it may have arbitrary side effects.
In other words, we lose some debug informations.
This patch fixes the problem making sure that BDCE does nothing with the instruction if
it has side effects and no non-dbg uses.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27471
llvm-svn: 288851
There are two cases handled here:
1) a branch on undef
2) a switch with an undef condition.
Both cases are currently handled by ResolvedUndefsIn. If we have
a branch on undef, we force its value to false (which is trivially
foldable). If we have a switch on undef, we force to the first
constant (which is also foldable).
llvm-svn: 288725
so we can stop using DW_OP_bit_piece with the wrong semantics.
The entire back story can be found here:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20161114/405934.html
The gist is that in LLVM we've been misinterpreting DW_OP_bit_piece's
offset field to mean the offset into the source variable rather than
the offset into the location at the top the DWARF expression stack. In
order to be able to fix this in a subsequent patch, this patch
introduces a dedicated DW_OP_LLVM_fragment operation with the
semantics that we used to apply to DW_OP_bit_piece, which is what we
actually need while inside of LLVM. This patch is complete with a
bitcode upgrade for expressions using the old format. It does not yet
fix the DWARF backend to use DW_OP_bit_piece correctly.
Implementation note: We discussed several options for implementing
this, including reserving a dedicated field in DIExpression for the
fragment size and offset, but using an custom operator at the end of
the expression works just fine and is more efficient because we then
only pay for it when we need it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27361
rdar://problem/29335809
llvm-svn: 288683
Now that PointerType is no longer a SequentialType, all SequentialTypes
have an associated number of elements, so we can move that information to
the base class, allowing for a number of simplifications.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27122
llvm-svn: 288464
As proposed on llvm-dev:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-October/106640.html
This is for a couple of reasons:
- Values of type PointerType are unlike the other SequentialTypes (arrays
and vectors) in that they do not hold values of the element type. By moving
PointerType we can unify certain aspects of how the other SequentialTypes
are handled.
- PointerType will have no place in the SequentialType hierarchy once
pointee types are removed, so this is a necessary step towards removing
pointee types.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26595
llvm-svn: 288462
Instead, expose whether the current type is an array or a struct, if an array
what the upper bound is, and if a struct the struct type itself. This is
in preparation for a later change which will make PointerType derive from
Type rather than SequentialType.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26594
llvm-svn: 288458
This just extracts out the transfer rules for constant ranges into a single shared point. As it happens, neither bit of code actually overlaps in terms of the handled operators, but with this change that could easily be tweaked in the future.
I also want to have this separated out to make experimenting with a eager value info implementation and possibly a ValueTracking-like fixed depth recursion peephole version. There's no reason all four of these can't share a common implementation which reduces the chances of bugs.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27294
llvm-svn: 288413
[recommitting after the fix in r288307]
This requires some changes to the opt-diag API. Hal and I have
discussed this at the Dev Meeting and came up with a streaming delimiter
(setExtraArgs) to solve this.
Arguments after this delimiter are only included in the optimization
records and not in the remarks printed in the compiler output. (Note,
how in the test the content of the YAML file changes but the remarks on
the compiler output don't.)
This implements the green GVN message with a bug fix at line
http://lab.llvm.org:8080/artifacts/opt-view_test-suite/build/SingleSource/Benchmarks/Dhrystone/CMakeFiles/dry.dir/html/_org_test-suite_SingleSource_Benchmarks_Dhrystone_dry.c.html#L446
The fix is that now we properly include the constant value in the
message: "load of type i32 eliminated in favor of 7"
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26489
llvm-svn: 288380
If LoopInfo is available during GVN, BasicAA will use it. However
MergeBlockIntoPredecessor does not update LI as it merges blocks.
This didn't use to cause problems because LI was freed before
GVN/BasicAA. Now with OptimizationRemarkEmitter, the lifetime of LI is
extended so LI needs to be kept up-to-date during GVN.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27288
llvm-svn: 288307
Summary:
Fix a case when first register in a search has maximum
RegUses.getUsedByIndices(Reg).count()
Reviewers: qcolombet
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D26877
From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 288278
This implements PGO-driven loop peeling.
The basic idea is that when the average dynamic trip-count of a loop is known,
based on PGO, to be low, we can expect a performance win by peeling off the
first several iterations of that loop.
Unlike unrolling based on a known trip count, or a trip count multiple, this
doesn't save us the conditional check and branch on each iteration. However,
it does allow us to simplify the straight-line code we get (constant-folding,
etc.). This is important given that we know that we will usually only hit this
code, and not the actual loop.
This is currently disabled by default.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25963
llvm-svn: 288274
Michel Dänzer reported that r288051, "[StructurizeCFG] Use range-based
for loops", introduced a bug into rebuildSSA, wherein we were iterating
over an instruction's use list while modifying it, without taking care
to do this correctly.
llvm-svn: 288200
The flag was introduced because the optimization controlled by the flag initially caused regressions. All the regressions were fixed some time ago and the flag has been false for quite a while.
llvm-svn: 288154
Enable scalar hoisting at -Oz as it is safe to hoist scalars to a place
where they are partially needed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27111
llvm-svn: 288141
Preserving lifetime markers isn't as important as allowing promotion,
so just drop the lifetime markers if necessary.
This also fixes an assertion failure where other parts of SROA assumed
that lifetime markers never block promotion.
Fixes https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=29139.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24854
llvm-svn: 288074
Summary:
As far as I can tell, doing our own computations in
NearestCommonDominator is a false optimization -- DomTree will build up
what appears to be exactly this data when it decides it's worthwhile.
Moreover, by building the cache ourselves, we cannot take advantage of
the cache that the domtree might have available.
In addition, I am not convinced of the correctness of the original code.
In particular, setting ResultIndex = 1 on the first addBlock instead of
setting it to 0 is quite fishy. Similarly, it's not clear to me that
setting IndexMap[Node] = 0 for every node as we walk up the tree finding
a common parent is correct. But rather than ponder over these
questions, I'd rather just make the code do the obviously-correct thing.
This patch also changes the NearestCommonDominator API a bit, improving
the names and getting rid of the boolean parameter in addBlock -- see
http://jlebar.com/2011/12/16/Boolean_parameters_to_API_functions_considered_harmful..html
Reviewers: arsenm
Subscribers: aemerson, wdng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26998
llvm-svn: 288050
Summary:
The iterative algorithm for Loop Unswitching may render some of the branches unreachable in the unswitched loops.
Given the exponential nature of the algorithm, this is quite an overhead.
This patch fixes this problem by selectively unswitching only those branches within a loop that are reachable from the loop header.
Reviewers: Michael Zolothukin, Anna Thomas, Weiming Zhao.
Subscribers: llvm-commits.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D26299
llvm-svn: 287925
Summary:
No need to copy the RPOT vector before using it. Switch from std::map
to SmallDenseMap. Get rid of an unused variable (TempVisited). Get rid
of a typedef, RNVector, which is now used only once.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26997
llvm-svn: 287721
Summary:
"addRequired" and "addPreserved" look very similar when squished up next
to each other -- without the newline this code looked to me like it was
addRequired'ing DominatorTreeWrapperPass twice.
Reviewers: arsenm
Subscribers: wdng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26996
llvm-svn: 287720
Summary: Lets us get rid of one member variable too.
Reviewers: arsenm
Subscribers: wdng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26992
llvm-svn: 287716
We visit and/or, we try to derive a lattice value for the
instruction even if one of the operands is overdefined.
If the non-overdefined value is still 'unknown' just return and wait
for ResolvedUndefsIn to "plug in" the correct value. This simplifies
the logic a bit. While I'm here add tests for missing cases.
llvm-svn: 287709
Allow using an instruction other than a mul or phi as the base for
root-finding. For example, the included testcase includes a loop
which requires using a getelementptr as the base for root-finding.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26529
llvm-svn: 287588
This patch updates a bunch of places where add_dependencies was being explicitly called to add dependencies on intrinsics_gen to instead use the DEPENDS named parameter. This cleanup is needed for a patch I'm working on to add a dependency debugging mode to the build system.
llvm-svn: 287206
Summary:
For flat loop, even if it is hot, it is not a good idea to unroll in runtime, thus we set a lower partial unroll threshold.
For hot loop, we set a higher unroll threshold and allows expensive tripcount computation to allow more aggressive unrolling.
Reviewers: davidxl, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: sanjoy, mehdi_amini, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26527
llvm-svn: 287186
In RateRegister of existing LSR, if a formula contains a Reg which is a SCEVAddRecExpr,
and this SCEVAddRecExpr's loop is an outerloop, the formula will be marked as Loser
and dropped.
Suppose we have an IR that %for.body is outerloop and %for.body2 is innerloop. LSR only
handle inner loop now so only %for.body2 will be handled.
Using the logic above, formula like
reg(%array) + reg({1,+, %size}<%for.body>) + 1*reg({0,+,1}<%for.body2>) will be dropped
no matter what because reg({1,+, %size}<%for.body>) is a SCEVAddRecExpr type reg related
with outerloop. Only formula like
reg(%array) + 1*reg({{1,+, %size}<%for.body>,+,1}<nuw><nsw><%for.body2>) will be kept
because the SCEVAddRecExpr related with outerloop is folded into the initial value of the
SCEVAddRecExpr related with current loop.
But in some cases, we do need to share the basic induction variable
reg{0 ,+, 1}<%for.body2> among LSR Uses to reduce the final total number of induction
variables used by LSR, so we don't want to drop the formula like
reg(%array) + reg({1,+, %size}<%for.body>) + 1*reg({0,+,1}<%for.body2>) unconditionally.
From the existing comment, it tries to avoid considering multiple level loops at the same time.
However, existing LSR only handles innermost loop, so for any SCEVAddRecExpr with a loop other
than current loop, it is an invariant and will be simple to handle, and the formula doesn't have
to be dropped.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26429
llvm-svn: 286999
When both WidenIV::getWideRecurrence and WidenIV::getExtendedOperandRecurrence
return non-null but different WideAddRec, if getWideRecurrence is called
before getExtendedOperandRecurrence, we won't bother to call
getExtendedOperandRecurrence again. But As we know it is possible that after
SCEV folding, we cannot prove the legality using the SCEVAddRecExpr returned
by getWideRecurrence. Meanwhile if getExtendedOperandRecurrence returns non-null
WideAddRec, we know for sure that it is legal to do widening for current instruction.
So it is better to put getExtendedOperandRecurrence before getWideRecurrence, which
will increase the chance of successful widening.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26059
llvm-svn: 286987
Summary:
Unfolding selects was previously done with the help of a vector
of pointers that was then sorted to be able to remove duplicates.
As this sorting depends on the memory addresses, it was
non-deterministic. A SetVector is used now so that duplicates are
removed without the need of sorting first.
Reviewers: mgrang, efriedma
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26450
llvm-svn: 286807
All existing callers were manually extracting information out of an existing
GEP instruction and passing it to getGEPExpr(). Simplify the interface by
changing it to take a GEPOperator instead.
llvm-svn: 286751
No testcase included because I can't figure out how to reduce it.
(It's easy to write a testcase where rotation clones an assume,
but that doesn't actually seem to trigger the crash in opt on
its own; maybe an issue with the laziness?)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26434
llvm-svn: 286410
Summary:
Unrolled Loop Size calculations moved to a function.
Constant representing number of optimized instructions
when "back edge" becomes "fall through" replaced with
variable.
Some comments added.
Reviewers: mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21719
From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 286389
Scalar Evolution asserts when not all the operands of an Add Recurrence
Expression are loop invariants. Loop Strength Reduction should only
create affine Add Recurrences, so that both the start and the step of
the expression are loop invariants.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26185
llvm-svn: 286347
Summary: For functions with profile data, we are confident that loop sink will be optimal in sinking code.
Reviewers: davidxl, hfinkel
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26155
llvm-svn: 286325
Summary:
These are good candidates for jump threading. This enables later opts
(such as InstCombine) to combine instructions from the selects with
instructions out of the selects. SimplifyCFG will fold the select
again if unfolding wasn't worth it.
Patch by James Molloy and Pablo Barrio.
Reviewers: rengolin, haicheng, sebpop
Subscribers: jojo, jmolloy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26391
llvm-svn: 286236
Summary:
In some specific scenarios with well understood operand bundle types
(like `"deopt"`) it may be possible to go ahead and convert recursion to
iteration, but TailRecursionElimination does not have that logic today
so avoid doing the right thing for now.
I need some input on whether `"funclet"` operand bundles should also
block tail recursion elimination. If not, I'll allow TRE across calls
with `"funclet"` operand bundles and add a test case.
Reviewers: rnk, majnemer, nlewycky, ahatanak
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26270
llvm-svn: 286147
Argument evaluation order is one of the edge cases where Clang differs
from GCC, yielding different IR depending on which compiler LLVM was
built with. Make the order deterministic and tune the test to actually
verify the order instead of trying to hide it.
llvm-svn: 286126
Summary:
SmallSetVector uses DenseSet, but that means we need to reserve some
values for the empty and tombstone keys.
It seems to me we should have a general way to let us store full-range
ints inside of DenseSets, and furthermore that we probably shouldn't
silently let you add ints into DenseSets without explicitly promising
that they're in range. But that's a battle for another day; for now,
just fix this code, since we currently do something Very Bad when
compiling ffmpeg.
Fixes PR30914.
Reviewers: jeremyhu
Subscribers: llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26323
llvm-svn: 286038
This condition is trivially always true prior to the change. The comment
at the call site makes it clear that we expect *all* of these to be '=',
'S', or 'I' so fix the code.
We have a bug I will update to track the fact that Clang doesn't warn on
this: http://llvm.org/PR13101
llvm-svn: 285930
Summary:
It was detected that the reassociate pass could enter an inifite
loop when analysing dead code. Simply skipping to analyse basic
blocks that are dead avoids such problems (and as a side effect
we avoid spending time on optimising dead code).
The solution is using the same Reverse Post Order ordering of the
basic blocks when doing the optimisations, as when building the
precalculated rank map. A nice side-effect of this solution is
that we now know that we only try to do optimisations for blocks
with ranked instructions.
Fixes https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30818
Reviewers: llvm-commits, davide, eli.friedman, mehdi_amini
Subscribers: dberlin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26154
llvm-svn: 285793
Fixes PR 30784. Discussed with Justin, who pointed out that
in the new PassManager infrastructure we can have more fine-grained
control on which analyses we want to preserve, but this is the
best we can do with the current infrastructure.
llvm-svn: 285380
Summary: LICM may hoist instructions to preheader speculatively. Before code generation, we need to sink down the hoisted instructions inside to loop if it's beneficial. This pass is a reverse of LICM: looking at instructions in preheader and sinks the instruction to basic blocks inside the loop body if basic block frequency is smaller than the preheader frequency.
Reviewers: hfinkel, davidxl, chandlerc
Subscribers: anna, modocache, mgorny, beanz, reames, dberlin, chandlerc, mcrosier, junbuml, sanjoy, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22778
llvm-svn: 285308
When the loop exit condition is canonicalized as a != compaison, reuse the
debug location of the original (non canonical) comparison.
Before this patch, the debug location of the new icmp was obtained from the
loop latch terminator. This patch fixes the issue by correctly setting the
IRBuilder's "current debug location" to the location of the original compare.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25953
llvm-svn: 285185
When indvars widened an induction variable, the debug location for the loop
increment computation was incorrectly set equal to the debug loc of the loop
latch terminator.
This patch fixes the issue by propagating the correct location from the
original loop increment instruction to the new widened increment.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25872
llvm-svn: 285083
Now that MemorySSA keeps track of whether MemoryUses are optimized, use
getClobberingMemoryAccess() to check MemoryUse memory dependencies since
it should no longer be so expensive.
This is a follow-up change to https://reviews.llvm.org/D25881
llvm-svn: 285080
Summary:
When using MemorySSA, re-optimize MemoryPhis when removing a store since
this may create MemoryPhis with all identical arguments.
Also, when using MemorySSA to check if two MemoryUses are reading from
the same version of the heap, use the defining access instead of calling
getClobberingAccess, since the latter can currently result in many more
AA calls. Once the MemorySSA use optimization tracking changes are
done, we can remove this limitation, which should result in more loads
being CSE'd.
Reviewers: dberlin
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25881
llvm-svn: 284984
Summary:
These are good candidates for jump threading. This enables later opts
(such as InstCombine) to combine instructions from the selects with
instructions out of the selects. SimplifyCFG will fold the select
again if unfolding wasn't worth it.
Patch by James Molloy and Pablo Barrio.
Reviewers: reames, bkramer, mcrosier, gberry, haicheng, jmolloy, sebpop
Subscribers: jojo, rengolin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25477
llvm-svn: 284971
When we have a loop with a known upper bound on the number of iterations, and
furthermore know that either the number of iterations will be either exactly
that upper bound or zero, then we can fully unroll up to that upper bound
keeping only the first loop test to check for the zero iteration case.
Most of the work here is in plumbing this 'max-or-zero' information from the
part of scalar evolution where it's detected through to loop unrolling. I've
also gone for the safe default of 'false' everywhere but howManyLessThans which
could probably be improved.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25682
llvm-svn: 284818
There's no agreement about this patch. I personally find the
PRE machinery of the current GVN hard enough to reason about
that I'm not sure I'll try to land this again, instead of working
on the rewrite).
llvm-svn: 284796
This change is motivated by the case when IndVarSimplify doesn't widen a comparison of IV increment because it can't prove IV increment being non-negative. We end up with a redundant trunc of the widened increment on this example.
for.body:
%i = phi i32 [ %start, %for.body.lr.ph ], [ %i.inc, %for.inc ]
%within_limits = icmp ult i32 %i, 64
br i1 %within_limits, label %continue, label %for.end
continue:
%i.i64 = zext i32 %i to i64
%arrayidx = getelementptr inbounds i32, i32* %base, i64 %i.i64
%val = load i32, i32* %arrayidx, align 4
br label %for.inc
for.inc:
%i.inc = add nsw nuw i32 %i, 1
%cmp = icmp slt i32 %i.inc, %limit
br i1 %cmp, label %for.body, label %for.end
There is a range check inside of the loop which guarantees the IV to be non-negative. NSW on the increment guarantees that the increment is also non-negative. Teach IndVarSimplify to use the range check to prove non-negativity of loop increments.
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25738
llvm-svn: 284629
In theory this could be generalized to move anything where
we prove the operands are available, but that would require
rewriting PRE. As NewGVN will hopefully come soon, and we're
trying to rewrite PRE in terms of NewGVN+MemorySSA, it's probably
not worth spending too much time on it. Fix provided by
Daniel Berlin!
llvm-svn: 284311
- Removed unused class members.
- Made class internal data private.
- Made class scoped data function scoped where it's possible.
- Replace naked new/delete with unique_ptr.
- Made resources guaranteed to be freed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25464
llvm-svn: 284290
This is with an extra change to avoid calling MemoryLocation::get() on a call instruction.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25542
llvm-svn: 284098
This CL didn't actually address the test case in PR30499, and clang
still crashes.
Also revert dependent change "Memory-SSA cleanup of clobbers interface, NFC"
Reverts r283965 and r283967.
llvm-svn: 284093
Reappy r284044 after revert in r284051. Krzysztof fixed the error in r284049.
The original summary:
This patch tries to fully unroll loops having break statement like this
for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
if (a[i] == value) {
found = true;
break;
}
}
GCC can fully unroll such loops, but currently LLVM cannot because LLVM only
supports loops having exact constant trip counts.
The upper bound of the trip count can be obtained from calling
ScalarEvolution::getMaxBackedgeTakenCount(). Part of the patch is the
refactoring work in SCEV to prevent duplicating code.
The feature of using the upper bound is enabled under the same circumstance
when runtime unrolling is enabled since both are used to unroll loops without
knowing the exact constant trip count.
llvm-svn: 284053
This patch tries to fully unroll loops having break statement like this
for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
if (a[i] == value) {
found = true;
break;
}
}
GCC can fully unroll such loops, but currently LLVM cannot because LLVM only
supports loops having exact constant trip counts.
The upper bound of the trip count can be obtained from calling
ScalarEvolution::getMaxBackedgeTakenCount(). Part of the patch is the
refactoring work in SCEV to prevent duplicating code.
The feature of using the upper bound is enabled under the same circumstance
when runtime unrolling is enabled since both are used to unroll loops without
knowing the exact constant trip count.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24790
llvm-svn: 284044
An arithmetic shift can be safely changed to a logical shift if the first
operand is known positive. This allows ComputeKnownBits (and similar analysis)
to determine the sign bit of the shifted value in some cases. In turn, this
allows InstCombine to canonicalize a signed comparison (a > 0) into an equality
check (a != 0).
PR30577
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25119
llvm-svn: 284013
This implements the cleanup that Danny asked to commit separately from the
previous fix to GVN-hoist in https://reviews.llvm.org/D25476#inline-219818
Tested with ninja check on x86_64-linux.
llvm-svn: 283967
This is a refreshed version of a patch that was reverted: it fixes
the problems reported in both PR30216 and PR30499, and
contains all the test-cases from both bugs.
To hoist stores past loads, we used to search for potential
conflicting loads on the hoisting path by following a MemorySSA
def-def link from the store to be hoisted to the previous
defining memory access, and from there we followed the def-use
chains to all the uses that occur on the hoisting path. The
problem is that the def-def link may point to a store that does
not alias with the store to be hoisted, and so the loads that are
walked may not alias with the store to be hoisted, and even as in
the testcase of PR30216, the loads that may alias with the store
to be hoisted are not visited.
The current patch visits all loads on the path from the store to
be hoisted to the hoisting position and uses the alias analysis
to ask whether the store may alias the load. I was not able to
use the MemorySSA functionality to ask for whether load and
store are clobbered: I'm not sure which function to call, so I
used a call to AA->isNoAlias().
Store past store is still working as before using a MemorySSA
query: I added an extra test to pr30216.ll to make sure store
past store does not regress.
Tested on x86_64-linux with check and a test-suite run.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25476
llvm-svn: 283965
For each block check that it doesn't have any uses outside of it's innermost loop.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25364
llvm-svn: 283877
The core of the change is supposed to be NFC, however it also fixes
what I believe was an undefined behavior when calling:
va_start(ValueArgs, Desc);
with Desc being a StringRef.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25342
llvm-svn: 283671
Summary: LoopSink pass uses some common function in LICM. This patch refactor the LICM code to make it usable by LoopSink pass (https://reviews.llvm.org/D22778).
Reviewers: davidxl, danielcdh, hfinkel, chandlerc
Subscribers: hfinkel, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24168
llvm-svn: 283134
Splitting the edge is nontrivial because of the landing pad, and we would
currently assert trying to do it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24680
llvm-svn: 283129
Reid Kleckner